‘A recent Technology and Construction Court (TCC) case in the UK highlights several important issues that preoccupy outsourcing and technology lawyers during contract negotiations.’
OUT-LAW.com, 22nd October 2024
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘The Court of Appeal in Winter & Anor v Winter & Anor [2024] EWCA Civ 699 recently considered an appeal focused on the finding of the judge at first instance that there was detriment for the purposes of a proprietary estoppel claim. The case provides a useful recap of the relevant principles to be applied when detriment falls to be considered.’
Gatehouse Chambers, 25th July 2024
Source: gatehouselaw.co.uk
‘The dust should now have settled since the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Guest v Guest (2022). However, in exploring recent case law, this article exposes that the rules applied to decide proprietary estoppel cases remain as uncertain as ever. Some commonality can be identified, but only in the persistent favouring of promisors over promisees. This article criticises the practical and theoretical underpinnings of proprietary estoppel and proposes further reform. In particular, the article draws new links from the doctrine of secret trusts to suggest a more just and certain basis for proprietary estoppel’s future application.’
Trusts & Trustess, 19th March 2024
Source: academic.oup.com
‘The recent case of Lacy v Homeselect Finance [2023] UKUT 231 (LC) considered a number of historic service charge issues between a long-leaseholder and a freeholder of a flat in Torquay. A particular point of note is the decision regarding admissions and estoppel.’
Park Square Barristers, 11th October 2023
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘The recent case of Teasdale v Carter & Teasdale [2023] EWHC 490 (Fam) provides a helpful reminder of the principles to be applied in a financial remedies hearing when a third party is joined in order for them to argue an interest in the family pot.’
Park Square Barristers, 26th September 2023
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘4 New Square Chambers’ Carola Binney explores the developing use of estoppel in the successful pursuit of claims against insurers.’
4 New Square, 28th September 2023
Source: www.4newsquare.com
‘Wilson v Wilson & Anor (2023) EW Misc 5 (CC). A county court judgment on a claim under section 27 Housing Act 1988 for unlawful deprivation of occupation, against a background of breakdown in relations between a family. The key issue being the residential status of the claimant where she was, admittedly, absent from the property. There was also a claim in proprietary estoppel.’
Nearly Legal, 23rd July 2023
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘In this post, Tobias Seger, an Associate at CMS, comments on the Supreme Court’s decision in Guest v Guest [2022] UKSC 27, handed down by the Supreme Court on 19 October 2022. This case concerns the proper approach to granting relief under the doctrine of proprietary estoppel.’
UKSC Blog, 12th December 2022
Source: ukscblog.com
‘This appeal concerns the proper basis for awarding remedies in cases of proprietary estoppel. Proprietary estoppel arises when a person gives a promise or assurance to another person that they have or will be given an interest in property and that other person reasonably relies on the promise or assurance to their detriment.’
UKSC Blog, 19th October 2022
Source: ukscblog.com
‘This article will consider an interesting case involving deceit, when some defendants took out an unregulated loan, secured on a residential property, on the basis that the loan was wholly or predominantly for a business purpose.’
33 Bedford Row, 11th August 2022
Source: www.33bedfordrow.co.uk
‘A decision on whether to give permission to appeal should not ordinarily be cited unless it clearly indicates that it purports to establish a new principle or to extend the present law – so said Lord Woolf CJ in Practice Direction (Citation of Authorities) 2001 1 W.L.R. 1001. To specialist practitioners, however, permission applications remain of interest in dynamic areas such as proprietary estoppel.’
Tanfield Chambers, 11th May 2022
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Global 100 Ltd v Laleva (2021) EWCA Civ 1835. There is a hell of a lot packed into one appeal here, so I’ll try to be brief. This was Global 100’s appeal of a first instance appeal (our note here) in which HHJ Luba QC had held that the first instance District Judge had been wrong to decide the possession claim against property guardians and make a possession order at first hearing, as there was a defence which appeared to be substantial and required further evidence and hearing.’
Nearly Legal, 6th December 2021
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘In this post, Tim Sales, a partner in the Dispute Resolution team at CMS, and Hannah Jones, who works in the Tax team at CMS, comment on the decision handed down by the UK Supreme Court in the matter of Tinkler v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2021] UKSC 39, which concerned whether estoppel by convention applied to prevent the taxpayer disputing that HMRC had validly served a notice of enquiry.’
UKSC Blog, 25th August 2021
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The Supreme Court has unanimously allowed this appeal addressing whether a taxpayer is prevented from challenging the validity of an enquiry into their tax return by HMRC where both parties have proceeded, for nearly a decade, on the mistaken assumption that the enquiry was validly initiated by a letter sent to the taxpayer.’
UKSC Blog, 30th July 2021
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The High Court in London has decided in favour of Optis Cellular Technology in a dispute over the validity of one of its telecommunications network patents and one that was said to be essential to the long-term evolution (LTE) network standard.’
OUT-LAW.com, 12th July 2021
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘The case related to a complaint made against Mr McFadden, that he had inappropriately touched a woman at an anti-austerity march attended by Unite members. A complaint was raised with Unite and Mr McFadden was found to have breached the union’s rules on conduct “in the workplace”. He appealed through the union’s procedures and his appeal was unsuccessful. Thereafter, Mr McFadden made a complaint to the assistant certification officer [“ACO”]. The ACO determined that as the alleged conduct was outside the workplace, in a context where Mr McFadden was not acting as a representative of Unite, nor at an event organised by Unite, the complaint did not pertain to conduct that Unite could discipline him for and consequently the allegation was null and void. The ACO ordered Unite to reinstate McFadden to his positions held prior to the suspension.’
Parklane Plowden, 10th March 2021
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘This decision is a real treat to read. The case, which is principally concerned with the validity of a break clause notice served by a landlord to determine a lease, is delivered in a communicative style, and enlivened by a number of sporting references.’
New Square Chambers, 1st April 2021
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
‘During January 2021 the Court of Appeal handed down three judgments on appeals relating to strike out applications under CPR 3.4(2)(b): Allsop v Banner Jones Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 7, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP v BTI 2014 LLC [2021] EWCA Civ 9 and Tinkler v Ferguson [2021] EWCA Civ 18.’
Ropewalk Personal Injury Blog, 25th February 2021
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘A High Court has described the double deletion by a witness for the claimant of crucial emails on the eve of the trial of a film financing dispute as a “very serious misdeed”.’
Litigation Futures, 23rfd February 2021
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘These proceedings related to an adjudicator’s decision dated 27th April 2020 (“the 27th April Decision”) under the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 as amended (“the Scheme”). Lane End Developments Construction Limited (“Lane End”) was the main contractor on a housing development (“the Development”) and Kingstone Civil Engineering Limited (“Kingstone”) was sub-contracted to carry out enabling works for the Development. On 2nd March 2020, Kingstone issued Interim Payment Application No. 17 in the sum of £356,439.19, but Lane End did not serve a Pay Less Notice nor, until 26th March, did it serve a Payment Notice.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 13th November 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024